- Ever since the Palestinian elections of January 2006,
the search for peace in the Middle East has been like the legendary Chimp's
typewriter creation of Shakespeare--a random pecking at the political keyboard
that never finishes a sentence. In 2006 Israel thought it might
improve the climate for peace on its own terms, so it invaded Lebanon to
eliminate Hezbollah, one of the major sources of support for Hamas and
the Palestinian people. But the Israelis lost. They
then increased hectoring of the Palestinians. Refusing, along
with the US, to accept the Palestinian elections that gave Hamas the right
to form a new Palestinian government, the Israelis, with US support, set
out to keep Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party in power. In short,
the name of the game was to ignore the election and keep Abbas illegally
in power. The US/Israeli supported effort to elevate Fatah in
Gaza flopped because Hamas had better support in Gaza where the Palestinian
government then resided. The Israeli/US answer was to move the
unelected Abbas government lock, stock, and barrel to Ramallah in the West
Bank.
-
- Abbas established a government in Ramallah with a US/Israeli
mandate. He did not have the nerve to ask the Palestinian people for one,
because, had he done so, Hamas probably would have had enough support even
in the West Bank to again win the lead (if Hamas were allowed to enter
candidates). The situation was hardly made to order for a "free"
election, so they didn't hold one. In the meantime, Abbas erected
his government in Ramallah within the enfolding arms of Israeli perimeter
protection, Mossad coverage of possible flies in the ointment, and US training
of security forces for the Abbas government. Gaza and the pesky
Hamas crowd could simply be ignored.
-
- That could be the order of the day, except that there
were 1.5 million people (close to one of every three Palestinians) in Gaza
under Hamas rule. Tightening the cordon around Gaza was the first
Israeli order of effort to eliminate Hamas. Abbas and Fatah
fully approved. Maybe if life became hard enough for the people
in Gaza they would abandon Hamas. Tight Israeli control of Gaza
borders, patrols of the coastal waters, and rigorous Egyptian support via
border controls appear to have yielded better tunnels into Egypt
from Gaza and probably more stubborn swimmers, because Gaza did not collapse. The
Gaza Palestinians proved very stubborn.
-
- With its normally mistaken clarity of vision, Israeli
leadership attempted to dispose of Hamas by an all out military attack
on Gaza. The Israel Defense Force (IDF) one of the best armed
military forces in the world (thanks to the United States), lined up against
Palestinian militias equipped with small arms and crude, handmade rockets.
To tame Gaza, the Israelis launched operation Cast Lead in late December
2008. Bombing and strafing without control or remorse, by the
end of January 2009 the IDF had made a shambles of what was left of Gaza's
infrastructure, had killed and wounded more than 1300 of its people-mostly
women and children-but had left the people of Gaza battered but unbowed. Over
following weeks and months private and multinational efforts to provide
assistance to Gaza increased, leading to the flotilla fiascoes that followed
in early 2010. Whatever their on the ground situation, which
to all and sundry almost everywhere appeared increasingly desperate, the
Palestinians in Gaza were simply not prepared to call it quits. Meanwhile,
Abbas and his Fatah followers huddled in the comfortable arms of US/Israeli
polite captivity.
-
- It is in this nearly totally corrupt environment that
the US decided it was time for the Israelis and the Palestinians to hold
"direct" peace talks. That is as distinct from the
indirect mumblings about peace that had been going on forever. The
indirect talks had progressed, if that indeed is an appropriate word, for
years in the total absence of any agenda. To avoid making things
too difficult for the Israelis, who approach the idea of peace with utmost
misgivings, or for the Palestinians who lacked most of all a representative
leadership, it was decided to proceed without the participation of a third
of the Palestinian people, those poor beleaguered souls in Gaza. But
it must be emphasized that the only way either party could be brought to
the table was without any advance commitments.
-
- To be absolutely fair, the Palestinian people are not
actually represented in these talks. The Abbas government has
no legal standing, so Palestinians in the West Bank are not represented
by an elected leader of their own choosing. The last legally elected government
of Palestine is in Gaza and it has not been invited to these talks. With
an honest broker on the scene, Mahmoud Abbas could possibly be the representative
of the Palestinians. However, he has too avidly supported US/Israeli efforts
to eliminate Hamas to have any real standing. With the US White
House unequivocally on the side of the Israelis, and with the US Congress
blatantly under the control of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, the Palestinians have little to no chance of being heard.
-
- Actual Israeli and Palestinian positions are thoroughly
dug in. The Israelis have made their position crystal clear. Before arriving
in Washington, Netanyahu said that Israel will not commit to any concessions
on territory, and the increasingly clear official Israeli goal is all of
Palestine without any Palestinians. Therefore, virtually no
one in Israeli leadership, it is clear, wants to talk about an actual peace
agreement. On the other side, if Abbas were to commit to any
starting conditions, he would lose any remaining credibility he has with
Palestinians if he did not echo the Hamas position that, at minimum, would
be the Arab League formula floated in 2002. That would require Israel to
back off to the 1967 truce line, agree to return or compensation to expelled
Palestinians, agree to a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, help create
a truly independent Palestinian state, and recognize the rights of the
Palestinian people. In short, the starting positions for these
talks add up to something like a Mexican standoff. As optimists
might say, things could improve with discussion, but on the issues as stated,
the chances are close to zero.
-
- The truth is that most of the planet devoutly hopes that
the United States actually will mediate this situation. But
the crude reality is the United States is not positioned to carry out this
role. President Obama has to know those facts of positions that
have stalled Middle East peace talks for more than a generation. Obama
also knows that this is the only foreign policy issue that could cause
him to lose the next election. He is well aware of the strenuous constraints
on his freedom of action that would be imposed by an almost perfectly pro-Israeli
Congress. The question is whether he is determined enough
to get some results as well as bold enough to take the kinds of political
chances that any substantial outcome from these talks would require.
-
- Such is Obama's Babylonian captivity. He is the President
of the most powerful military power on the planet. However, unless he is
prepared to take extreme political risks, he lacks the political power
to control management of this issue in his own capital. Every President
from Harry Truman onward has confronted some version of this political
dilemma, but none has had it presented more forcefully.
-
- Today US prestige in the Middle East is at low ebb, while
the scope of legitimate American interests is at least a demanding long
term constant. For decades the United States has been tagged
with the task of achieving a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
For decades the Israelis have worked openly and steadily to steal Palestine
from its owners. That the process has been progressive grand
theft of homes, properties and lives has been virtually ignored by the
outside world. Israeli access to and control of media has enabled
them to put the blame on Palestine, but that fog is slowly clearing as
more people become aware of the facts of Israeli land theft and ethnic
cleansing.
-
- This is the part of the situation that is different for
President Barak Obama. The world has become more aware of Middle
East reality. It is increasingly mindful of the cruelty and
injustice built into Israel's attempted creation of a Jewish state. Through
Internet, small stream and independent media, more Americans are becoming
aware of our country's role in an ongoing crime against humanity. The
design of a peace agreement between a criminal and its victims is not your
run of the mill diplomatic venture. Especially after six decades of collective
punishment for the victims, getting all the players placidly into the room
is no simple matter.
-
- Herein lies Obama's problem. All of the players
are not present. Not even the last fairly elected majority party is on
the scene. To attempt a binding agreement when one of the parties
is not represented legally, and in this case, the elected government is
forcefully excluded, is at least novel diplomatic terrain. We
can all hope that in these circumstances our chief negotiator knows whereof
he speaks. When accepting the Liberty Medal in 1998 for his
work on Northern Ireland negotiations, then retired Senator George Mitchell
said "I believe there's no such thing as a conflict that can't be
ended... No matter how ancient the conflict, no matter how hateful, no
matter how hurtful, peace can prevail. But only if those who stand for
peace and justice are supported and encouraged, while those who do not
are opposed and condemned. Seeking an end to conflict is not for the timid
or the tentative" The Middle East situation offers perhaps the ultimate
test of his reasoning.
-
-
- **********
-
- The writer is the author of the recently published work,
A World Less Safe, now available on Amazon, and he is a regular columnist
on rense.com. He is a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer of the US
Department of State whose overseas service included tours in Egypt, India,
Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Brazil. His immediate pre-retirement positions
were as Chairman of the Department of International Studies of the National
War College and as Deputy Director of the State Office of Counter Terrorism
and Emergency Planning. He will welcome comment at
- wecanstopit@charter.net
|
